are you yo surprised?

i always surprise you. >> shannon: a hero's welcome when surprised his daughter at school. he was returning home from his fourth tour overseas and could not wait to see her. welcome home and thank you so much. the entire family for that service. two dogs in denver up for adoption but you have to take them both because one of them is blind and the other serves as his seeing eye dog. >> we consider jack to be kind of chico's seeing eye dog. he takes care of him and looks out for him and they go on walks together and go everywhere together. >> shannon: they have been together sense they were puppies and the shelter refuses to separate them. if you are interested in adopting them go to maxfund.org. we have been asking should lawmakers have access to the benghazi is survivors or should the ey identities be secret for their own protection?

thanks for weighing in. most of you think our government should give access to the survivors. is it for us here in washington. i'm shannon bream. captioned by closed captioning services, inc. >> chris: i'm chris wallace. gearing up for the battle of the budget with new talk of a grand bargain. as president obama switches from the blame game to breaking bread with republicans, both sides prepare plans for the nation's economic future. house budget committee chair paul ryan will give us an exclusive preview of his new budget. plus, tell us what he discussed with the president over lunch this week. congressman paul ryan, only on "fox news sunday." then, jeb bush returns to the spotlight to talk about immigration reform and his political future. will his new you plan help or hurt prospects for a deal on immigration? and how serious is he about 2016? we'll sit down with jeb bush.

plus, congress takes on the white house over national security. we'll ask our sunday panel controversy over drones and the new york trial of an accused al-qaeda terrorist. all right now on "fox news sunday." >> chris: and hello again from fox news in washington. president obama calls him a thought leader of the the republican party. and this week, house budget committee chair paul ryan will put out a plan that would balance the federal budget in ten years. on the heels of a private lunch with the president on thursday, congressman ryan joins us to discuss all of it. and congressman, welcome back. >> thanks for having me. good morning, chris. >> the plan would balance the budget in ten years not 25 years like the last one. how do you do that? make even tougher deeper spending cuts? actually not really. we always got close to

balancing the budget but not quite there. we don't have to do too much because the new cdo baseline makes it easier because it reflects the fiscal cliff which is higher revenues and lower spending making it easier to balance. we expend the bca budget control act caps out another three years. and ask all federal employees to have the pension contributions like those in the private sector at the end the budget one dough. we don't have to do huge things to get the balanced budget you. the point is we think we owe the american people a balanced budget. we want to respect hard working taxpayers and we think we have a responsible plan to balance the budget which the reason we do a balanced budget is not to make the numbers simply add up. it leads to a healthy growing economy that creates jobs. a means to an end. the means is to get to a good growing economy to create jobs and opportunity. i'm glad the senate is doing a budget. first one in four year hes. our concern is that they may

never propose to ever balance the budget and we think that is irresponsible. >> chris: talk about the reasons you don't have to make changes to budget it in ten years. you mention the tax increases that came from raising rates in the fiscal cliff debate and include $716 billion in medicare cuts through obama care that you opposed in the last campaign. question, is it fair to say that at least those parts of the president's policies make it easier to balance the budget? >> it is fair to say that. what we also say is end the raid of med did he care from obama care. all that money that was taken from medicare was to pay for obama care. we say we get rid of obama care and end the raid and apply the savings to medicare to make it more solvent and extend the medicare trust fund. the fiscal cliff is current law and that is not going to change and we propose progrowth tax reform and we think with the

current revenue lien w line wed have a system to bring all rates down. good for economic growth and creation and taxpayers by having less loopholes. stop picking winners and losers. those things are still achievable and we achieve that in the budget and do reflect the realities that you just mentioned. >> chris: in the last budget you cut spending $5 trillion over ten years. how much do you cut spending in the new budget? >> basically the same. $5 trillion. instead of growing spending at 4.9% a year which is the average under the current path we are on we grow spending at 3.4% each year over the next decade and gets us on the path to balance and the result is about a $5 trillion spending cuts. >> chris: cuts in the rate of growth not actual absolute cuts. >> we will grow spending on average 3.4% a year instead of growing it on average 4.9% a

year which is the path we are on which takes us away from ever balancing the budget which produces a debt crisis. that is the problem. the president has us on a path toward a debt crisis that hurts everybody. that brings us to a recession. gives us a european kind of experience we want to avoid. we want people going back to work. higher wages. more jobs. a growing economy. we get that by balancing the budget. >> chris: there are two sides to the argument. the president would say the spending cuts and sequester and cuts that you going to propose in the short-term could actually hurt this kind of slightly improving recovery and throw us back into a recession. let me ask you about a couple of the specific cuts you made last year and tell me if they are not in the new budget. i assume that they are. you cut medicaid by $770 billion over the next ten years. cut 134 billion florida food stamps. $166 billion from education, training and social services. democrats say that that makes

you the party of austerity that this is going to hurt people who depend on the programs and two, they say that rather than spur growth it is going to hurt growth. >> well, we have 49 different job training programs spread across nine different government agencies. lots of bureaucracies. they don't work. we propose to consolidate the programs in a flexible grants that go back to the states to actually get people into jobs and into training so they can get back to work. so we get rid of the bureaucracy in washington and send money back to the states so people can get the skills they need to get the jobs they want. on food stamps we say you have to qualify for the program to get the food stamp benefit. with our reforms food stamps would have grown by 260% instead of 270 about percent that they did grow. with respect to medicaid we think the obama expansion is reckless. we are pushing 20 million people into a program failing. more and more doctors and

hospitals don't take the program. reform medicaid by giving states the ability to customize the medicaid program to meet the unique needs of their medicaid populations. we think it will make the programs better. >> chris: you say by turning medicaid into a block grant and giving it to the states you can cut $770 billion out of the program over the next ten years and it will have no impact on legitimate recipients? >> these are increases that have not come yet. by repealing obama care and medicaid expansions which haven't occurred yet we are basically preventing an explosion of a program that is already failing. we are saying don't grow this program through obama care because it doesn't work. prevent that growth from going because it is not going to work. it is going to hurt people trying to help. it will hurt hospitals and states and give the states the tools that they are asking for. indiana is a perfect example. they have a fantastic medicaid program that mitch daniels created in indiana that is popular and successful and working well but obama care

prevents it from going forward. we want to give states like, indiana, states like wisconsin the tools they need to make the benefits work tor for their populations and don't want to push more people into a failing program and by not pushing people into the failing program we do save these kinds of dollars. >> chris: i want to pick up on this because i must say i didn't understand this. are you saying as part of your budget you assume the repeal of obama care? >> yes. >> chris: well, that is not going to happen. >> well, we believe it should. that is the point. but this is what budgeting is all about, chris. it is about making tough choices to fix our country's problems. we believe that obama care is a program that will not work. we believe obama care will actually lead to hospitals and doctors and healthcare providers turning people away. it is a program that basically puts medicare under the control of 15 people on a board that will determine what kind of benefits people get. that is a rationing board, however, you slice it. we don't think healthcare is going to be improved in this

country. we think it will look very ugly over the next couple of years and that is why we will propose replacing obama care with patient centered healthcare and a better healthcare system for everybody. for the poor. for people in the states. for medicare so we can actually have affordable health insurance for everybody including people with preexisting conditions without costly government takeover which is what obama care represents. our budget does promote repealing obama care and replacing it with a better system. onchris: i want to pick up on the medicare. starting with people who are now you 54 and reportedly wanted to raise it to 56 but then there was political pushback, starting with people who are now 54 you would start to give them when they become of age a government subsidy, a voucher, premium support to help them pay for healthcare costs. i don't have to tell you this was a big issue in the campaign between romney/ryan versus obama/biden.

they think they won and that is one of the reasons they won. there are lot of independent studies that say if you put this into effect the net effect will be he that seniors will end up having to pay more of the share of their healthcare costs. >> first of all, it is not a vouch ever. premium support. a voucher you go to the mailbox and get a check and go buy something. put medicare into a system that works like the one i have as federal employees. a list of coverage options including medicare for the future healthcare needs. medicare subsidizes your plan based on who you are. total subsidy for the poor and the sick. less for wealthy seniors. harnessing the power of choice and competition where a senior gets to choose the benefit that is comprehensive is the best way to save medicare for future generations. guarantees it does not change for people in or near retirement and guarantees us near the age of 55 we have a

medicare program we we retire. the problem is medicare is going broke. obama care does such damage it will damage the program for current seniors. we don't want that to happen and we are proposing the reforms to save and strengthen the medicare program not just for my mom but for our generation as well. we won the senior vote. i did colorado dozens of medicare town hall neatings mckinley states like, florida, explaining these are the best reforms to save and strengthen the medicare program. it has bipartisan support. an idea that came from democrats in the first place and we think it is the best way to go because the alternative here of having a choice based system where you get to choose the plan that meets your need is 15 bureaucrats making the decisions in washington which are the new obama care board which we repeal in the budget. >> chris: this brings us to the lunar gravity than you had on thursday with president obama at the white house and i want to explore whether there is the

basis for a compromise here. i got to say i don't hear it so far. let me start this way. from your view after having lunch with the president do you think that his so called charm offensive is sen sear, tha sins really look for compromises that still seems like a big divide or por more political tr to appear to be reaching out? >> i think the answer to the question will be clear in the way he conducts himself the next several months. i never really had a conversation with him on these issues before. i'm excited that we had this conversation. we had a very frank exchange. we come from different perspectives. i ran against him in the last election. so we exchanged very different frank candid views of one another that were very different but at least we had this conversation and i think the answer to your question will be determined by how he conducts himself in the coming weeks and months. will he resume the campaign mode?

will he resume attacking republicans and impugning our motives? will he resume what is long believed to be a plan to win the 2014 elections or will he sincerely change in trying to find common ground and try and work with republicans to get something done? that is what we hope happens. but we want to get a down payment on the debt crisis. >> chris: let me pick up on that. you talk about coming from different perspectives. one of the last times you and the president were together was almost exactly two years ago in the last -- when the budget that year had come out and with you in the audience the president took apart the proposed spending cuts you wanted to make. take a look. >> these are the kinds of cuts that tell us we can't afford the america that i believe in and i think you believe in. i believe it paints a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic. >> chris: the vision he is talking about is the ryan budget. did that come up at the lunch congressman?

>> it did but that is basically what i was saying. if you you impugn people's motives and say these drayian cuts which we are increasing spending by average 3.4% a career that does no good to get to common ground and makes it impossible for parties to come together to bridge the gaps. if that kind of rhetorics resumes we will know this was for show and it it wasn't sincere. i hope this is sincere. we had a very good frank exchange but the proof will be in the coming weeks as to whether or not it is a sincere outreach to find common ground? i think there are things that we can do that don't offend either party's philosophy that doesn't require someone to is surrender their principles to make a good down payment on getting the debt and deficit under control. that is what i would like to achieve. >> chris: let me pick up with you on thattio that, congressm. there are basic disagreements that remain. the president would like to raise $600 billion at least in added revenue by clearing out so many of the deductions and loopholes for upper income

people. you want not nips and cuts but structural reform tone titlements. did you get a sense, first of all, are you willing to give up one to get the other and did you get a sense he was? >> we already had a tax increase. we think it is unfair to ask hard working taxpayers to pay more so washington can spend more. we think we he should balance the budget. >> chris: but you know that is what he wants. >> we do have a difference of opinion on that. the other problem is this by continuing to raise taxes to fuel more spending you will never get tax reform which is critical for economic growth and job creation. yes, we have an impasse right now which is the president wants to continue raising taxes not for deficit reduction but to fuel more spending and we see tax reform as an incredibly important goal and policy to getting progrowth economics and getting businesses growing again and hiring people. tax reform to us is an economic growth generating exercise. tax reform for the president so far seems to be a spend ising

growth exercise. a revenue generating exercise >> chris: bottom line what do you. >> we don't want to raise taxes because we just did raise taxes chris bottom line what do you think of the chances of a big deal this year to try to get the deficit under control? >> i think it will be determined by the temprament and the posture that the president and all of us take over the next few weeks. we have spending problem and i like to see we can find common ground. will the president take the premium survivors yo survivorsu port program? my guess is he won't. are there things you you can do short of that that gets you closes to balancing the budget and delays the debt crisis from hitting this country? yes, i think there are. i do believe there is a consensus for tax reform. a lot of moderate crate modem r of closing loopholes. stop picking winners and losers

in washington. you don't lose revenue for the federal government and make it easier for small businesses to create jobs and hire more workers. we think there is a consensus for that. >> chris: don't mean to interrupt. a couple more political questions to ask you and very little time. did you come away from your experience as the vice presidential candidate in 2012 thinking that the prospect of running for president for two years would be appalling or exciting? >> that is a good question. actually i enjoyed the experience. it made it more realistic in my mind. it is something that i much better understand and jen and i were talking about this just the other day. we actually enjoyed it. we got to meet hundreds of thousands of people who care so much about their country and learned a lot just about the greatness of this country and how hard working people want to get ahead and make a difference. actually i found it a very pleasant exercise to be candid with you.

>> chris: and what is more attractive to you as sit here today, running for president or staying in the house doing the important work you do there and maybe some day becoming speaker? >> i have no plans to be in leadership. if i wanted to be in elected leadership like speaker i would have run for these jobs years ago, i believe the better place is in policy leadership. with respect to running for are president i honestly think that we have a problem right now you. a budget mess and a debt crisis coming. i represent the first district of wisconsin. that to me is the first important thing and i shouldn't be clouding my judgment today by thinking about some political thing four years from now. i should not be clouding my judgment by thinking how does this position me to run for president. do what you think is right. how can i help wisconsin and close the budget gap and then when we are through that moment i will give serious thought to these other things but not until then. >> chris: congressman ryan thank you very much for joining

us today. we will be tracking whether this time there really is a grand bargain. thanks, sir. >> thanks, chris. >> chris: up next, former governor you jeb bush talks about immigration reform and his political future. [ loud party sounds ] hi, i'm ensure clear... clear, huh? i'm not juice or fancy water. i've gotine grams of protein. that's three times more than me! [ female announcer ] ensure clear. nine grams protein. zero fat. in blueberry/pomegranate and peach.

>> chris: jeb bush hasn't decided yet but for the percent time is keeping the door open to a possible run for president in 2016. this week the former florida governor returned to the spot light with a new book "immigration wars" in which he lays out his plan for comprehensive reform. bush's comments stirred considerable controversy and when we talked with him friday we asked about that. governor, in your new book you lay out a couple of paths for the 11 million illegal

immigrants who are are now you in this country. you you say if they want per are manent legal residence status they should pay a fine for breaking the law, pay taxes, learn english and commit no crimes go become a citizen they must return home and apply through the normal immigration process. question, governor, what is the difference between that and what mitt romney was proposing last year, self-deportation which you say in your book made it almost impossible for him to get any hispanic votes? >> well, the difference is that suggesting there be at there path to legalization. people here come out from the shadows. a far cry from telling people they just have to go back to their home country. the other thing i would say is our proposal also says for children of illegal immigrants those that have come here illegally that were children thieved have a path to citizenship on a far faster basis.

the so-called dream act kids. >> chris: in terms of the path to citizenship that is self-deportation, correct? >> it is not. people can stay here. 60% of the people that were granted a process of legalization and citizenship in 1987 did not apply for citizenship. they stayed as legal residents of the country. and so it is much different than to say you know you have no ability to be able to have a chance to come out from the shadows. now, i also think that a path to citizenship so long as the ability of someone to come legally is easier and less costly than coming illegally that the path to citizenship is appropriate and i applaud the work of the senators and others in congress working to try to craft a consensus and compromise on this issue. >> chris: i will pick up up on that because you taken heat

from the senators who say your plan is more restrictive than what the so-called bipartisan group of 8, gang of 8 has come up with when it comes to the path to citizenship. they say that they would allow it as soon as the border becomes secure and lindsey graham says your plan cut me off-guard and undercuts what we are trying to do. have you made it easier for conservatives to appose immigration reform? >> no, not at all. in fact, i think i have talked to senator graham and he said that we are in synch on this, that based on the comprehensive nature of our proposal and the book that clint bullock and i wrote that the objectives are the same. i admire his work and i think that if -- with some continued efforts on this and with the house also having a version of immigration reform it could be, chris, that there is chance that something old fashioned

happens which is that there is a conference committee and that there is a formed consensus on -- a forged consensus on immigration reform which would be spectacular for the country and i don't think the book undermines that at all. >> chris: let me pick up on that. your he saying to get to be a citizen you have to go back to your home country and apply through the normal processes and what the senators are saying is no, you could stay in the country and once the borders are deemed to be secure then you could become a citizen without self-deportation. isn't that a difference? >> and the senators are also saying that the path to -- for someone outside the country that has patiently been waiting they should have a chance to come legally before anybody becomes a citizen that has come here illegally and that is the town dabs of our idea and that is -- that is the foundation of our idea and that is where there is a consensus. there is not much light between what we are suggesting in the book and what is being worked on right now which is very

encouraging. >> chris: you have also taken some heat during this past week for your suggestion that you might be willing to accept more revenue, higher taxes as part of a grand bargain if you also got serious spending cuts and entitlement reform. antitax advocate grover norquist said this. people are looking for someone who is tough and you are saying i'll fold. >> what i think we ought to be focused on in washington is to build consensus on the things where there is an agreement. maybe that would be on creating high growth. sustained economic growth creates more revenue than any tax increase. i don't think that you should -- when you are asked a question about whether or not you are for or are against something to automatically say no, heck, no, we have to find in a divided country ways to forge compromise. i'm sitting here at the regan library where a great conservative a man beloved by

not just conservatives but you all americans exactly that. he forged consensus and compromised and didn't violate his principles. the idea you have to have the view, you can win a debating point but you are not going to necessarily be able to solve the pressing problems we have. i'm encouraged a lot of people in washington understand that and are willing to try to find a common ground. immigration is part of that. >> chris: in your book you repeatedly criticize the president for as you say he broke the campaign promise to enact immigration reform in the first year. and in the book you say leaders lead they don't create a poisonous atmosphere. simple question. what do you think of barack obama as president? >> he is a very effective campaigner and he is continuing to campaign. one thing, though, i have been encouraged that a couple of days ago, three or four days ago he had dinner with 12

republican senators, i believe and had lunch with paul ryan. whether that is a gym mi gimmir sincere, i hope it is sincere. if he does pivot towards trying to reconcile and find common ground and share in the credit and not have everything be about political victories it it is possible we could begin to solve some of those problems. my hope and prayer is that i have been wrong and he is changing direction. i hope that is the case. >> chris: early on in the 2008-2012 cycle you took yourself out of the possibility of running for president but this time your answer is i'm not saying yes, it is just that i'm not saying no. so my question is are you leaving the door open because it will get you more attention for your views which i have got to say is working wonderfully well, or is it that you are really in a different place about running for president, is, sir? >> you know, it is -- we just had an election. the election occurred three

months ago. it seems like you would be making decisions like that closer to the election than three months after the last one. and so it is a sig sincere thot maybe it is better to make decisions in the proper context at the proper time. i like the fact that in washington world all logic is just based on i will logical things. that i would create all this controversy so people would buy the book. it is fantastic. you are not the first person that hinted at that. >> it has worked. let me ask you a couple of more questions about the illogic of whether or not you would run in 2016. some people say obviously you are proud of your family and proud of their accomplishments but the question is would it be a political burden. it is fair to say when your brother left the presidency he was some what unpopular. the most the recent poll shows that 46% view in five irabley

and 49% unfavorably. do you think there is any bush baggage? do you think that would be a problem? >> no. i don't think there is any bush baggage at all. i love my brother. i'm proud of his accomplishments. i love my dad. i'm proud to be a bush. if i run for president it is not because of something in my dna that compels knee do it. it would be it is the right thing to do for my family and the condition are right and i have something to offer. if i don't run i have a blessed life. i can continue to do what i'm doing now. work on immigration reform and advocate the policies that i believe in and a little private life and that decision will happen, as i said, later on. >> chris: one last question this this regard. terry jeffrey who is a conservative columnist said if you were to run that you would not be the conservative candidate you would be the establishment candidate. do you plead that you would be the establishment candidate? >> i don't even think about it. i'm here at the regan library

and i'm proud to be here and i just -- the idea that you have to put everybody in the categories and -- is -- that is washington world. out here there are people really concerned about the future of our country and the structural problems that we have and they are looking for solutions and i'm going to be part of offering those solutions whether i'm a candidate or not. >> chris: let me say, sir,, whether you cop a come as a cae or one of the most thoughtful and provocative voices in the republican party you are always welcome here. thank you for talking to us and good luck to you and good luck with the book. >> thanks, chris. >> chris: up next, lunch, dinner and plenty of face time with the republicans. we will ask the sunday group what is behind the presidents if new charm offensive. dad, i'd put that down.

ah. 4g, huh? verizon 4g lte. 700 megahertz spectrum, end-to-end, pure lte build. moe most consistent speeds indoors or out. and, obviously, astonishing throughput. obviously... you know how fast our home wifi is? yeah. this is basically just as fast. oh. and verizon's got more fast lte coverage than all other networks combined. oh, why didn't you just say that? huh-- what is he doing?

you deserve better than the same political gridlock and refusal to com compromise thats

too often passed for serious debate. i have been reaching out to republicans and democrats to see if we can untangle some of the gridlock. >> chris: president obama explaining recent outreach to congressional republicans on the budget. time for the sunday group. kimberly strassel of the "wall street journal." julie pace who covers the white house for the associated press. radio talk show host ingram and fox news political analyst juan williams. kim, what do you make of the president's so called charm offensive? is sudden interest in spending quality time with republicans. sincere or theater? >> one of the more interesting things we learned about this week was the washington post story that said in fact the president's ambition over the next ten years is not to pass anything or are to govern. it is to highlight republicans as a problem and paint them as the issue and beat them in the

204 election so that then he has the house and the senate and the white house as he did in the first term and can pass whatever he wants again. the charm offense one of the problems is they got caught right in the sequester. they went out and he look is so obviously to be campaigning and got asked a lot of questions about why he was on the road rather than trying to solve the problem. he can't be obvious about the strategy if it is, indeed, a strategy they are pursuing. >> chris: julie, the white house says that the president came to the conclusion that he couldn't deal with republican leaders and if he, first of all, he couldn't make a teal with them and secondly if he did they couldn't then sell it to the members so he decided to go directly to the rank and file. is that what is behind this? even during the course of the week if you look at the media address last saturday he was blasting republicans and this one about outrage. a dramatic shift. >> i think there is truth to the fact that the white house decided that talking just too boehner and talking just to

mcconnell obviously wasn't getting anybody closer to a deal and they have been very strategic in it choosing the republicans particularly on the senate side that obama is going to be talking to. looked for people who showed some indication they may be willing to discuss revenue increases as part of a bigger deal. kelly ayotte and lindsey graham. what the white house is hoping to do is try to generate momentum or at least a conversation among some of the rank and file republicans. the reality is at a certain point he needs the republican leadership. he can't completely avoid having conversations with them. >> chris: whatever the president's motivation, the real question is, is there any basis for a deal here? is there a bridge that can be crossed on this? i was struck listening to paul ryan. he has obama care being repealed. he still wants the medicare structural reform. the premium supports. as he called it. others call it vouchers. i know the white house they at the talk about tax reform as opposed to ryan talk about

keeping the rates up. not low aring rates just doing away with the loopholes so it is another tax increase. is there a deal there? >> i think it as cass many and the president picked lindsey graham to be the one to put the dinner together for a reason. he said he is open to new revenues which, of course, conservatives weren't really surprised to hear lindsey graham say something about that. we will talk about rand paul but he was a thorn in the side of rand paul. the president saw tom brokaw and bill keller of the new york times, washington post, all of the liberal institutions and people a little bit to the left saying this looks like a campaign. >> chris: even the peanut gallery. >> this is a campaign here. you just got elected. this is the second term now and time to get something done. when people on the left only slightly on the left are saying that, i think the president i have to at least make it look like, charm offensive, whatever you call, it break bread. the fact that he has to go around leadership.

he is in the second term. leadership is what it is. that is the world as it is. he says he is not dictator and can't just wave a wand and get everything done. the fact is you you have to deal with the players on the chess board. boehner and mcconnell are still in the leadership in their parties and you have to deal with them as much as it is fun to play in the sandbox with somebody maybe a little more idelogically on pour playing field as lindsey graham. >> what he is doing as opposed to just the optics of it to use the phrase here in washington and two, is there a deal to be made because it sure doesn't sound like it. >> speaking to laura's point the president has to have someone to work it and boehner has not proven he is able to bring his troops along and boehner bare could have loss os leadership if he makes a deal.

mcconnell is worried about attracting a strong tea party or republican candidate. the so called grand bargain deal basically put together the tax cuts in terms of -- cuts in terms of the loopholes i'm sorry, raising taxes through cutting loopholes and deductions and then go at things like savings with medicare. social security and the chain cpi. and i think it was like a mix of 650 or $900 billion in cuts. 680 in new tabs. is that is the basis that the president put out there at the dinner. that is what he is trying to tay chief here. the question is can he do that. will boehner and o'connell agree to a deal when it might have political consequences for them. >> chris: the "wall street journal" had a seeing editorial about the president obama plan and said it is a -- 80 real problem is not just a kash of

ideas, the white house is still living in november. they think maybe they can gin up momentum for everyone to come together and sit down and target the numbers that juan is talking about. that is not going to happen any more. you hear the republicans talking about regular order. what that means is you go first. the white house and senate democrats. juan said well, speaker boehner hasn't brought along his guy is. the president has never got his guys on the record on the floor with a bill that says they will accept entitlement reform. we don't know if there are a lot of senate democrats that would vote for the president's tax hikes he is putting to the. >> chris: the head of the senate budget committee will come out with a plan. >> first time in years. >> and we'll see what is in there and see what can pass. that is the point that the companies are are making really is that we will no longer get in a back room cigar filled and come up with a deal and try to

bring everybody along. show us what you you have got and then maybe we will meet in conference. >> chris: do white house officials think that they lost the pr battle over the sequester? a number of the predictions of what was going to happen turned out to be exaggerated or false and the decision to close the white house tours on spring break? >> the white house doesn't say publicly they lost the p.r. war on this. i i think we have to wait a couple of weeks or maybe a month or two to see what the actual impact of the sequester is going to be. they opened themselves up to criticism by putting out statistickics. there are fact sheets on every state. we will see if the impacts actually happened. if they didn't they will have a difficult time explaining why they overhyped -- >> the president's numbers went down. i think people thought he should be doing a better job of trying to lead the country and

they are worried that he lacked that leadership posture and it seemed as if he was -- the republican argument was trying to in fact make the sequester look more painful in order to make the political point. i don't think that played well. >> doug: president obama shut down the white house. >> chris: now, that they are taking to social media. >> let us come in. it is our house, mr. president. >> chris: a bad couple of weeks for the president. panel, we have to take a break here. when we come back, congress takes on the president over the use of drones and the decision to trynd an accused terrorist in the heart of new york city. my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. i decided enough is enough. ♪ [ spa lady ] i started enbrel. it's clinically proven to provide clearer skin. [ rv guy ] enbrel may not work for everyone -- and may not clear you completely, but for many, it gets skin clearer fast, within 2 months,

and keeps it clearer through 6 months. [ male announcer ] enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events, including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders, and allergic reactions have occurred. before starting enbrel, your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. you should not start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have symptoms such as persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. if you've had enough, ask your dermatologist about enbrel.

to allow one man to accuse you in secret you never get notified you have been accused your notification is the buzz of the propellers on the drones as it flies overhead in the the seconds before you are killed. is that what we really want from our government? >> chris: rand paul took to the senate floor for a 13 hour filibuster to protest the possibility the president might order a drone strike against an american citizen on u.s. soil. we are back now with the panel. so laura, what do you see as the significance of rand paul's criticism of the obama drone policy? and what about the split that we saw this week inside the gop between the libertarians who are primarily concerned with individual rights and the constitution and defense hawks like john mccain who say a president in a war commander in chief needs broad authority to use force. >> well, a couple of things. number one, john mccain and lindsey graham and the "wall street journal" editorial board extremely dismissive of rand paul.

"wall street journal" said calm down, said you have to do more than fire up impressionable libertarians in their college dorms. i thought to myself when is the last time a republican managed to capture the imagination of young people and some people on the left. mitch mcconnell. john thune, ted cruz. marco rubio. there was a wide range of republicans and people on the left who said you know something i think the attorney general should be able to answer a simple question with an unequivocal yes or no and couldn't do that. rand paul wasn't waving his hands and ranting and raving contrary to the journal condescendingly said. he said look we have three branches of government and it is our solemn duty to put a check on what the branch decides to do. it gives the president

unilateral and secret authority to order assassination by drone or other is strike. i think that is shocking to people. rand paul not sent a message to the country but solidified himself and it will shake up this party as it deserves to be shaken up. >> chris: senator paul's filibuster it was controversial among republicans and among democrats. it does raise a larger question then. 12 years into the war on terror with al-qaeda central diminished and all of these affiliates spreading across northern africa, especially do we need new rules of the road about when the president with use drones or other projections of u.s. power? >> absolutely. i think everybody agrees right now there is a lack of transparency and what you need is judicial review and congressional review potentially of the kill list. exactly who is on the kill list. you don't want a president exercising this authority in a vacuum as laura called it

unilateral. you you dso you do want that. in response to senator paul i thought it was grandstanding. it was an internet sensation. no u.s. sit den has been killed by a drone on u.s. soil. and this is authority to go after the u.s. citizen if the citizen is somehow involved in colluding with an enemy of theiate. >> it hasn't been done since the civil war. >> chris: i love the fact that we have the hawk, juan williams and the dove laura ingram. >> not the dove. the constitutionalist. >> chris: let me pick up here with julie. how does the white house feel about rand paul's filibuster? >> i don't think they took it incredible from seriously at the beginning. they felt like he already had thences to the questions that he was asking but i feel like

what he did is he got the attorney general to provide an answer that was more specific than what eric holder had been saying the day before new hampshire his testimony on the the hill. as we two through the process of trying to figure out what exactly the drone policy is and some of the details start to come out a lot of times the answers just start to raise more questions. i think it was important both for the white house and for the public in general to get that answer to rand paul's final yes which was not just would the president use a weaponnized drone on an american on american soil but does he have the authority to do so. and the answer provided was no. >> chris: well, i don't think -- he said if he is not in contact. >> that was an important step for the administration to take. >> chris: do you want to defend -- >> i think it is important. republicans, conservatives, libertarians need to not get swept up in what was happening

this week. a lot of enthusiasm and confusion. people were getting animated about the fact that he was talking about the constitution and this is something that a lot of conservatives felt the obama administration has not given enough deferens too and i'm not sure they were actually able to separate thoughts from the policy which is clear going back through the years if you are an enemy combatant under the laws of war the president does have the ability to do not just targeting you punishment taking you, detaining you and interrogating you and that has been the case going back through the history of the united states. the constitution absolutely allows for that and i think we get into a worrisome thing if we start taking away some of those other issues. if we start making false choices on this one particular issue. >> chris: this is why panel plus was continued. we will continue to discuss about the drones. >> come on. >> chris: we have something else to talk about. gee whiz. we also learned that the u.s. had arrested osama bin laden's

son in law you can see him there to the left and they charged him in a criminal court in new york city just blocks from ground zero with conspiring to kill americans. republican senator kelly ayotte not happy with the decision. watch. >> this man right next to osama bin laden involved in the attacks on our country on 9/11. don't you you think it would be important that we not tell h him he has a right to remain silent? >> chris: laura, the president clearly making a point by not sending him to a military tribunaluantanamo? >> interesting because we had the is switch from the previous controversy in new york where chuck schumer and john mccain and everybody came out and said no, no, no, ksm cannot be tried in a federal court. just a little bit con confusing. they pulled back the ksm trial

and he gets to be tried here. it is muddled. i'm not worried -- >> chris: you certainly agree that ksm is a bigger figure and higher target. >> the baghdad bob of al-qaeda, right. he was kind of the spokesman. nevertheless, i see what mccain's point it. seems not insulting but maybe inconvenient for the people of new york to have the trial. we tried the blind sheik successfully in new york. andy mccarthy did a terrific job this that trial. i think we will do a great job in this trial. i'm not as worked up as some conservatives are are about this. i think he will go away for the rest of his life. >> we didn't we just drone kill him, though. >> are you and a having a complete switch of roles here? >> really? do you like my hair today? >> i think the u.s. has an excellent record of convicting authorities and he was talking

for awhile and then went quiet. would we get more out of him -- >> that is the issue interrogation. he has been given the right to remain silent and moreover guaranteed the right to a speedy trial. which means we don't have the time that we would have in gar guantanamo to extract information from him. >> chris: i'm confused. usually i know what everybody is going to say. pretty interesting. pick out panel plus where the group pubs up with the discussion on our website which will be on drones. fox news sunday .com. we will post the video before noon on eastern time. follow us on twitter @ fox news sunday. up next we hear what you thought about last week's interview with mitt and ann romney.